Legal Compliance75/100
The tender clearly defines the procedure type and CPV codes, and specifies adherence to relevant UK regulations (GDPR, Surveillance Camera Commissioner's Code, BS EN 62676). However, the absence of a clear tender reveal date is a minor procedural oversight.
•Missing tender reveal date
Clarity70/100
The project description, scope of works, and key objectives are well-articulated. The AI-extracted requirements are comprehensive and easy to understand. A significant drawback is that the detailed quality evaluation criteria and weighting matrix are stated to be "available separately" but are not provided within the tender document, creating ambiguity for bidders.
•Detailed quality evaluation criteria and weighting matrix not provided in the tender document
Completeness60/100
Basic information, financial details, timeline, and classification are adequately provided. However, the tender explicitly references "appendix 1" (camera list) and "appendix 2" (map), as well as the quality evaluation matrix, none of which are included in the provided tender content. These are critical omissions for a complete bid submission.
•Missing referenced appendices (camera list, map)
•Missing quality evaluation matrix
Fairness60/100
The tender value is disclosed, and the procedure is open. However, the lack of the detailed quality evaluation criteria compromises transparency and objectivity. Furthermore, relying on email for submission instead of a dedicated e-procurement platform can introduce inconsistencies and reduce auditability, potentially affecting equal access for all bidders. The mention of an existing "HIK system" is a practical constraint for integration rather than overt tailoring.
•Detailed quality evaluation criteria not provided
•Reliance on email for tender submission
Practicality60/100
Electronic submission via email is supported, and key dates like contract start and duration are specified. However, the absence of a direct URL for accessing all tender documents and the use of email for submission (rather than a structured e-procurement portal) reduce overall practicality and efficiency for bidders.
•No direct URL for full tender documents
•Email-based submission rather than a dedicated e-procurement platform
Data Consistency90/100
The tender exhibits good data consistency with logical dates and no reported disputes or suspensions. Most key fields are populated, though the "Liable Person" field is empty and procedure codes are marked "N/A", which are minor omissions.
•"Liable Person" field empty
•N/A for procedure codes
Sustainability50/100
The tender explicitly mentions an "Innovation Focus" as a characteristic, indicating a forward-looking approach to technology. However, it lacks any explicit criteria or considerations for green procurement or broader social aspects, which are increasingly important in modern public tenders.
•Absence of explicit green procurement criteria
•Absence of explicit social criteria